Too close for comfort - easyJet lands with 18m fuel

[atakacs]

A320 LFMN-LSGG double divert and eventual emergency landing in Zurich.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/489x529/screenshot_2023_11_15_at_19_04_04_3c6fc11beea7cf13f411419088 d59fc1c52d291f.png
Flight track


AV Herald link (https://avherald.com/h?article=51123b8a&opt=0) (hope not an issue?)

[albatross]

Two diversions and an emergency landing.
How much fuel do you think they should have carried?

[atakacs]

No blaming anyone (certainly not my place) - just reporting on the incident.

I also note that they were the only to divert on that evening (the next one slotted behind them landed). Again reporting.

[Mr Albert Ross]

Having landed at all of those airports, I can understand the problems with that weather.

The fact that the one behind landed is very often irrelevant. More than once I have landed when the one ahead of me went around, nothing other than the 'luck of the draw' with us getting the fortunate lull in the wind gusts or patch of cloud moving away. I have also had a wind-shear go-around when the one directly before me had landed. Who was able to do what and when in conditions like that is not a valid comparison.

Well done to those pilots for the decisions that they made that day that eventually got them safely on the ground. One of those days when "company minimum fuel" is not necessarily a good idea.

[Chronic Snoozer]

No blaming anyone (certainly not my place) - just reporting on the incident.

I also note that they were the only to divert on that evening (the next one slotted behind them landed). Again reporting.

Did you mean to say they 'weren't' the only flight to divert? I believe the EasyJet CH flight from Sevilla to Geneva diverted to Lyon that evening as did a NetJets flight.

[Gordomac]

Albert : Try taking more than Company min fuel, for any reason, has been, for decades,, in certain companies,tthe reason for tea & Bicks with the CP. Since the early nineties, you would have to bring your own bourbons too.

With one outfit, as it happens on Standards check with CP, it looked like very low fuel state might lead to diversion. CP tried pursuading me, after I commented that continuing might mean. us having insufficient fuel to taxi after landing, with the comment ;"you do know that is not illegal ?) I diverted for more fuel and a short while later swopped my Lone Ranger Outfit for a proper airline uniform.

Looks like eazie had enough for what he did and carried a bit more for fowl weather anyway. Uncontrollable flatulence on the FD after landing though;-no doubt.

[Flipster130]

CVR must have been interesting to listen to

[hans brinker]

A320 LFMN-LSGG double divert and eventual emergency landing in Zurich.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/489x529/screenshot_2023_11_15_at_19_04_04_3c6fc11beea7cf13f411419088 d59fc1c52d291f.png
Flight track


AV Herald link (https://avherald.com/h?article=51123b8a&opt=0) (hope not an issue?)

"The crew declared emergency being low on fuel and decided to divert to Zurich advising Zurich ATC they had only 18 minutes of fuel left. The aircraft touched down on Zurich's runway 14 about 13 minutes after the go around in Basel" That would suggest they landed with about 5 minutes.

[beamer]

Never had a problem taking extra fuel when I/we thought it prudent - simply had to put down the reason on the Ops return.

[Herod]

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick" Can't argue with the logic of that.

[Sailvi767]

Well the last thousand lbs burns the same as the first thousand lbs!

[3Greens]

Well the last thousand lbs burns the same as the first thousand lbs!

well the rate of fuel burn is a bit different

[DaveReidUK]

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick"

Can't argue with the logic of that.

A bean-counter probably would. :O

[Doors to Automatic]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

[NoelEvans]

Many years ago, a friend was in for the annual assessment. It was noted that he had fewer days sick, but also that he generally took more fuel than most. "Yep; more fuel, less stress. Less stress, fewer days sick" Can't argue with the logic of that.Similar to a discussion that I heard in an airport hotel at LHR several years back. A discussion about 'minimum fuel' had moved on to personal fitness and 'using up' heartbeats with exercise. One of the captains brought this back to 'minimum fuel' by saying "That is why I carry extra fuel, I want to be going around the hold with a nice slow pulse rate"!!

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?Who cares about the relatively small effect on fuel burn on a day like that when the safety of the aeroplane is improved with that extra fuel. Are you one of those 'bean counters' who knows nothing about the real world??

I had a wind-shear go around once -- at my diversion airfield. I was sooo pleased that my fuel planning that day had been to arrive at my original destination at max landing weight so that in the unlikely event that we could land our weight permitted, but in the likely event that we were going to divert, on a really windy day we would have a comfortable fuel amount. I was very pleased to be able to make another relaxed approach after that unexpected wind-shear go around (and so were our cabin crew and full load of passengers!). Who cares about the 'extra' fuel burn. That is a tiny cost compared with running out of fuel.

Well done to that crew for arriving safely in Zurich. I hope that their future attitude to fuel planning and the bean-counters 'it is legal' nonsense has altered significantly and that they pass that on to others. Safety comes before any bean-counter misery.

[Uplinker]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

It depends on the overall aircraft weight on the day, and the sector distance, amongst other things, but from memory, an A320 on a typical European sector would generally burn an extra ~ 100kg of fuel for every extra tonne of fuel loaded above PLOG fuel.

[CaptainProp]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

There are many factors but as a rough guideline you’ll burn 3% of discretionary fuel per hour it’s carried. 2 hour flight, burn 6% of carried fuel, 4 hours, burn 12% etc.

CP

[WelshGeorge]

Ouch, that’s tight ….

[Right20deg]

An example of "proper low fuel state".... is the worlds favourite Concorde arrival at LHR a while back, requiring a dash down the steps to the refuel bowser el pronto to stick on a few tons. Refueler could not believe where the needles were and the rest is history. Happy days. I forget how many engines flamed out on the taxiway.

[Matey]

An example of "proper low fuel state".... is the worlds favourite Concorde arrival at LHR a while back, requiring a dash down the steps to the refuel bowser el pronto to stick on a few tons. Refueler could not believe where the needles were and the rest is history. Happy days. I forget how many engines flamed out on the taxiway.
Wasnt the operating Captain the Concorde Fleet Manager if I remember correctly?

[Doors to Automatic]

Who cares about the relatively small effect on fuel burn on a day like that when the safety of the aeroplane is improved with that extra fuel. Are you one of those 'bean counters' who knows nothing about the real world??
.

No, I am one of those people who thinks that bean counters who put so much pressure on pilots in order to save a few pence per seat that we end up with situations like this are completely out of their minds. If I had my way legal minimums would be upped by an hour.

[tdracer]

No, I am one of those people who thinks that bean counters who put so much pressure on pilots in order to save a few pence per seat that we end up with situations like this are completely out of their minds. If I had my way legal minimums would be upped by an hour.
But burning all that extra fuel to carry extra fuel would make Saint Greta very unhappy.

[Herod]

Greta might (?) be a saint, but she ain't the captain.

[NoelEvans]

Doors to Automatic, tdracer and Herod:

Excellent, excellent and EXCELLENT!!!!

[krismiler]

Considering that final reserve is typically only 30 mins, it doesn’t take very long to get down to these sort of numbers once things start going pear shaped.

The bean counters sitting in their offices with spread sheets aren’t dealing with an ever changing environment of weather, ATC, and operational factors. I’d love to have one of these guys in the flight deck when the weather is deteriorating and the expected approach time gets extended because of FOD on the runway.

Final reserve fuel needs to be 60mins minimum, if that adds a few pennies to the price of a ticket then so be it.

[Gordomac]

Trouble is that many 'bean-counters' in Flt Ops were Ex Mill failures who needed to make a point to higher-ups. No point in claiming to be the "Captain"; your "Command" decision making would come under review.

I regularly rounded up the fuel to nearest zero in order to make the manual loadsheet easier. Yes, Bean counters kept costs down by not paying for down-route or even Base departure computer loadsheets. "Captain" was phoned by CP and asked to calculate how much extra the annual fuel bills would be if everyone did that. It was quite a lot, actually.

Because ETOPS was an ERA operation, final reserve contingency could be, by definition, reduced to 5% of the last hour. Compliant 'Yes-Men' were flying the North Atlantic with 125kg contingency.

Clever 'beancounters' also applied language definition to the enhanced fuel requirement for ETOPS and convinced most that it was not necessary.

Try telling the beancounters that flying the N atlantic with 125 kgs contingency and no ETOPS enhanced diversion fuel because, say, the En-route Diversion airfield was, in fact, closed and, in any case, was a Glider club field . Claiming to be "Captain" would not endear.

Only one Cowboy outfit employer in my experience and I said "Khimo Sabi" pretty quick. Still look good in me Tonto outfit that I kept for dressing up room parties though.

Thankfully, there are very professional airlines out there who would not argue with fuel decisions. I stayed with one for 17 years and regularly came top of the list of the most fuel efficient Captains. I was told that it was because I was one of the few who took Company minimum fuel, all the time. It was a generous figure compared to what the Cowboy outfit was trying to pursuade me to do.

In recent history, wasn't it one lot who were so often declaring fuel emergencies at arrival airfield that it became, almost, SOP ???

I take full round-trip in the Beamer just going to Ayanappa for lunch ! - Much easier on the digestion -.

[70 Mustang]

A captain's adherence to the flight plan fuel depends upon their experience and who, at various stages of their career progression, they are hoping to impress. If brought up in an airline where tight SOP adherence results in rapid upgrades and "brownie points" one can expect to see a semi-religious following of flight plan fuel. Until one day, or night, all goes south and they suddenly "see the light" that no one else can help after the fuel is gone and they then see the wisdom of carrying extra fuel and the futility in trusting in the luck they had had until that event. after it happens again, even after taking some extra fuel, they then see that a bit more will not hurt.

I learned before I left piston aircraft that min fuel can kill after learning that my instrument instructor had been talked into making a flight without taking on some extra fuel, did not make the short flight from Anchorage International to Merrill Field, a flight "planned" for about 5 minutes flight time.

No chief pilot, nor the many tea and biscuits meetings i was called to, ever motivated me take only flight plan fuel. I always added more. Like one mentioned above, I looked more at landing weight limits than most.

[meleagertoo]

I learned my lesson on extra fuel early on in a commuter turboprop on a double-diversion day. Had I not carried the extra fuel I'd have had to land a Cat1 aircraft at STN in RVR 150. (40hrs on type)
From then on I continued to take what I felt was needed and when (later) employers sought justifcation I just used to write "Captaincy" on the flight report.It was never challenged.

fwiw I never (in 5 UK airlines) encountered jobsworth ex-mil people in Flt Ops trying to make a point (Chief Pilots, quite another matter). These min-fuel diktats don't usually if ever originate in Flt Ops, they are the bastard spawn of the grey-faced accountants that have so wrecked the industry.

[Sailvi767]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the flight path after the second divert. I would have taken a much more direct routing to Zurich.

[NoelEvans]

... and when (later) employers sought justifcation I just used to write "Captaincy" on the flight report. ...
I have known people simply to write "W&K" (for "Wife & Kids"!!)


I am surprised no one has mentioned the flight path after the second divert. I would have taken a much more direct routing to Zurich.From that Aviation Herald info:
The aircraft touched down on Zurich's runway 14 about 13 minutes after the go around in BaselConsidering the terrain in that area, it was night, the 'startle factor' of "where to go now" and planning for a totally unexpected approach, 13 minutes sounds quite good to me! Well done to them!!

[radlettrejoin]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/586x288/bsl_zrh_7c904d53f5a9cc72689f79ba643d61d60f2a6bb3.png


I am surprised no one has mentioned the flight path after the second divert. I would have taken a much more direct routing to Zurich.

The tracking shows that soon after the missed approach at Basel the aircraft turned left and flew a heading of about 075 that took them, with an intercept, to an 8-10nm final for RW14 at ZRH.
What routing would have been more direct?

[CV880]

Many years back in my line maintenance days I noticed an entry in the log book for a US major's 747-100 that had just completed a trans-pacific flight that the fuel boost pump LP lights were blinking on approach to NRT. Fuel on arrival was recorded as only 6,900LBS! Cutting it a bit fine?

[Sailvi767]

I have known people simply to write "W&K" (for "Wife & Kids"!!)


From that Aviation Herald info:
Considering the terrain in that area, it was night, the 'startle factor' of "where to go now" and planning for a totally unexpected approach, 13 minutes sounds quite good to me! Well done to them!!

You are correct. I glanced at the map and viewed it wrong.

[CargoOne]

Why everyone thinks about single sector? An airline with a few hundred aircraft regional fleet is doing literally thousands legs each day. If you wish to carry an extra fuel every time why dont you start your own AOC? Actually some gentlemen did. All of them failed badly.

[krismiler]

Unfortunately the amount of fuel burned in carrying extra fuel does mount up, particularly for larger operators. However it’s a safety issue and worth spending money on. I use my judgment to arrive with a sensible amount of fuel taking the conditions into account.

Going to India in the wet season, I’ve got fuel for the farthest alternate and about half an hours holding at my destination, if I can’t get in after a couple of goes I can choose the best option.

Flight plan fuel is simple the legal minimum to depart with.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why everyone thinks about single sector? An airline with a few hundred aircraft regional fleet is doing literally thousands legs each day.
And it is making thousands of hours equivalent revenue and profit each day. It's all relative. The cost is still only ~3.5% per tonne carried per hour of flight.

[Flipster130]

You have to remember that for LCC, if you divert to a nearby field, you will invariably, have the ac manufacturers' fitted low fuel warnings going off way before to get minimum land fuel/Final reserve. So unless the operator has modified the low fuel light limit (unlikely) you will be messing about with the QRH and checklists when you should be concentrating on the approach to yr alternate. I remember doing this when diverting from Bristol to Cardiff when the Bris runway got 'blacked' and shut for an 'indeterminate period' with about 3-4 other ac inbound to BRI. We were one of those and made an early decision to divert to ahead of the queue and were fed into the Cardiff pattern straight from Bristol approach - but the low fuel lights came on just as we got handed over on an intecept to the Cardiff ILS localizer. Very distracting and somewhat disconcerting - lucky it was good weather!

IIRC for the B7373, the low fuel amber light came on at 2000kg (1000kg per side) but the Final Reserve at Cardiff was 1500kg.....

[Luc Lion]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?
As mentioned by CaptainProp, the extra fuel burn caused by additional weight is computed using the weight factor.
The weight factor for modern aircrafts is typically between 3.1% per hour and 3.5% per hour. Historical values have ranged from 2.5% per hour to 5% per hour.

In practical terms, uploading an additional 1000 kg of jet A1 will burn an additional 31 to 35 kg of fuel with every hour of the flight.
Or, if your aircraft needs 1200 kg of fuel for flying 30 minutes at 1500 ft as the final reserve and if your planned flight time is 2h, you need to upload 1285 kg of fuel.

Weight factor increase with longer flight time because its effect is cumulative.
The weight factor for a 5h flight is not (1 + 5 * 0.035 ) = 1.175 (or a 17.5% factor),
but it is 1.035 ^ 5 = 1.188 (or a 18.7% factor).
It also increases (slightly) with very short flights because of climb and approach burn.

If you want to read about the theory behind weight factor, google on "Breguet Range Equation"
or read this page https://www.aircraftit.com/articles/a-new-approach-to-cost-of-weight-cow/

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Why everyone thinks about single sector? An airline with a few hundred aircraft regional fleet is doing literally thousands legs each day.

Because I’m not being paid to exercise my professional judgement and command authority over all those other thousands of flights. Just the one I’m doing now, with the crew, passengers and aircraft I’m responsible for. I’m not ordering extra fuel for the hell of it, just to ensure that I can deal with whatever eventualities I think are reasonable on the day.


​​​​​​​If you wish to carry an extra fuel every time why dont you start your own AOC?

No thanks, I’ll just keep doing my job to the best of my ability, which includes ordering whatever I consider to be a safe and professional amount of fuel.

[NoelEvans]

Why everyone thinks about single sector? An airline with a few hundred aircraft regional fleet is doing literally thousands legs each day. If you wish to carry an extra fuel every time why dont you start your own AOC? Actually some gentlemen did. All of them failed badly.
Just one sector, out of all hose "thousands legs each day", running out of fuel and crashing will make that airline fail, badly!

[RickNRoll]

Similar to a discussion that I heard in an airport hotel at LHR several years back. A discussion about 'minimum fuel' had moved on to personal fitness and 'using up' heartbeats with exercise. One of the captains brought this back to 'minimum fuel' by saying "That is why I carry extra fuel, I want to be going around the hold with a nice slow pulse rate"!!

Who cares about the relatively small effect on fuel burn on a day like that when the safety of the aeroplane is improved with that extra fuel. Are you one of those 'bean counters' who knows nothing about the real world??

I had a wind-shear go around once -- at my diversion airfield. I was sooo pleased that my fuel planning that day had been to arrive at my original destination at max landing weight so that in the unlikely event that we could land our weight permitted, but in the likely event that we were going to divert, on a really windy day we would have a comfortable fuel amount. I was very pleased to be able to make another relaxed approach after that unexpected wind-shear go around (and so were our cabin crew and full load of passengers!). Who cares about the 'extra' fuel burn. That is a tiny cost compared with running out of fuel.

Well done to that crew for arriving safely in Zurich. I hope that their future attitude to fuel planning and the bean-counters 'it is legal' nonsense has altered significantly and that they pass that on to others. Safety comes before any bean-counter misery.
Just a one percent saving on total company costs adds up to a very nice bonus for a few executives.

[NoelEvans]

Just a one percent saving on total company costs adds up to a very nice bonus for a few executives.
Just one aeroplane running out of fuel adds up to a lot of people potentially killed and the entire airline ending up out of work. But those executives in offices very remote from the crash will walk away with those "very nice bonuses".

If the weather is questionable, just take lots more fuel.

[42go]

If the weather is questionable, just take lots more fuel.Why not just divert?

[redsnail]

We had a quick discussion about this last week in our human factors class. My colleague (Swiss national) knew about the incident and suggested that the initial divert point was to Zurich, however, they were already dealing with a declared emergency, hence the divert to Basel. Unfortunately, the winds were very gusty and the approach was unstable so quite rightly went around. By then Zurich was now open and could take the easy Airbus.

[NoelEvans]

We had a quick discussion about this last week in our human factors class. My colleague (Swiss national) knew about the incident and suggested that the initial divert point was to Zurich, however, they were already dealing with a declared emergency, hence the divert to Basel. Unfortunately, the winds were very gusty and the approach was unstable so quite rightly went around. By then Zurich was now open and could take the easy Airbus.
This one just 'piles up' against the crew!

A low level go-around at destination. Wind-shear reports rule out another approach there, so divert. Diversion is busy with an emergency, so route to another (closer) diversion airfield, which has significant terrain considerations and (if I remember correctly) a steep approach, with winds 50deg across the runway gusting to 40kt, resulting (very easily!) in an unstable approach and go-around. Then divert to the original diversion declaring an emergency. Land safely. Well done!

Next time that the weather is 'questionable', just take lots of fuel!! Who cares what any 'bean counters' say. That crew have earned the right to put on whatever fuel they want for the rest of their careers!!

[krismiler]

We had a management pilot divert due to weather, he refueled and went back to the original destination. Crew were then AOG due to duty time limits. Since then, we were instructed to tanker to MLW at that airport when the weather is bad.

Another Captain who always took flight plan fuel had two weather related diversions in a month.

If you want to know the penalty for carrying extra fuel, check the flight plan. It should show the extra burn for the flight per ton above planned ZFW.

[atakacs]

Did you mean to say they 'weren't' the only flight to divert? I believe the EasyJet CH flight from Sevilla to Geneva diverted to Lyon that evening as did a NetJets flight.
Few further factual info

on that day there were a total of 10 go around in Geneva
four elected to divert, 6 landed
Easyjet diverted to Zurich but where informed that there was another emergency ongoing with a Swiss flight (Bruxelles - Geneva) which had an issue with their anti-ice and who was already diverting to Zurich. Thus they were re-routed to Basel
They tried to land there but conditions were even worse than in Geneva - so they had to divert again while declaring the low fuel emergency
the Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board (STSB) has opened an investigation into the matter (although I can't find anything on their website)

[Gordomac]

Noel; "Just take loads of fuel" ?? Can we be a bit tighter ? That broad-band attitude in the cowboy outfit I endured for a short spell would have you in the Office so often you would be fed up of tea & any biscuits.

Looks like Zurich was ok at time of dep. Other alternates were questionable. Good reason for "extra" fuel but, c'mon, how much extra and ,logically, one could take round-trip wherever you went just in case you can't get into destination, alternate closes off to you & other near alternates are suffering questionable weather.

You appear lucky enough to work for a professional transport organization where your command decisions are respected. I enjoyed the last 17 years of mine held in the same regard. IN fact, I got into trouble for suggesting we carried too much fuel ! Sometimes, can't win eh ?

[krismiler]

Keep a fuel diary of how much extra you carry and how often you use it. If you get invited for tea and biscuits, being able to show occasions where you would have landed below minimum divert or close to final reserve will usually shorten the discussion.

[Lookleft]

At my airline we don't have to keep a diary as every month we are presented with a graph of our additional CO2 emissions that our discretionally fuel has generated. To be fair though they don't include sectors where we are required to tanker fuel because there is no hypocrisy in generating extra CO2 to cover the cost of fuel. Apparently the cost of carrying extra fuel far outweighs the occasional weather diversion due to insufficient flight plan fuel. What about diversions due to the holding times being doubled from 20 minutes to 40 minutes because ATC can't handle the traffic flows? The only variable a Captain can control is fuel in a rapidly deteriorating operating environment and Flight Operations departments that are more closely aligned with the Commercial department than is healthy.

[midnight cruiser]

The diversion rate/destination holding fuel trade off in terms of overall average costs, is, I was told, skewed a little too much towards pilots favouring more uplifted fuel, compared to accepting a slightly higher risk of a (safe) diversion.
However, a lot of pilots don't seem to appreciate that their flight plan alternate may not be available, especially when there a lot of divs going on. I certainly favour getting the ducks lined up in a row with ATC if a div is looking likely , well before actually diverting,
and even if a pilot has stacks of fuel and burns it going round and round the hold at dest all the way down to reserves, and then diverts, that means landing with 30 minutes fuel, even if everything goes perfectly from that point. Personally, I have a buffer for the div. If the destination doesn't show an improving prospect, then no point in pointlessly burning the extra, and then diverting anyway. A decisive early decision is usually preferable I think, both in terms of cost and safety.
The incident rate historically, for a double divert is very high. India and Asia has more than example.
In a nutshell, IMO it's not so much about how much fuel you uplift from the bowser..., but what you do with it when things go pear shaped. Plan B,C,D,E should always be in the head, well before needing them.

[krismiler]

A lot of sculling around at low altitude is expensive in terms of fuel consumed and distance covered. The rate at which a big jet transport uses up fuel, in, for example, a couple of abortive attempts to land at a declared destination due to weather can be quite frightening; a prudent decision to divert earlier from a high cruising level leads to a much more peaceful existence.


​​​​​​​D.P. Davies - Handling the Big Jets

[Gordomac]

D.P. Davies - Handling the Big Jets

Kirs: I made early decision to divert, twice. One time with CP on board (!) doing a standards check. Result was in the cross hairs every time I walked in the door until I said "Khimo Sabi).

[MerseyView]

D.P. Davies - Handling the Big Jets
You only divert at Cruise levels in Europe when it is certain that the weather will exceed limits at ETA and stay that way whilst you burn any extra fuel you have brought.

This happens about only 1% of the time in short haul flying. If it was that obvious that you won't get in, you would know before departure and would have discussed it with Ops.

[krismiler]

While returning home a couple of months ago I cruised past one of our regular destinations and heard ATC advise visibility 600m in heavy thunderstorms and 20 aircraft holding. Had I been inbound, I wouldn’t have even bothered trying and would have gone straight to the alternate. Even if the weather had cleared up instantly, an approach was an hour away at best. Getting to the alternate first with a decent fuel reserve would be preferable to arriving in the middle of a mass of diversions, some of whom would be declaring minimum or mayday fuel.

Europe has a high density of airports, and spreading the diversions around is going to be possible. In other regions, if a major airport goes out options are more limited and one or two secondary airports won’t be able to cope with a sudden mass of arrivals. Parking can quickly become a problem as the airport rapidly fills up.

[NoelEvans]

... Getting to the alternate first with a decent fuel reserve would be preferable to arriving in the middle of a mass of diversions, some of whom would be declaring minimum or mayday fuel.

...There was the case several years ago of three aeroplanes declaring Mayday diverting into Valencia when Madrid had closed with un-forecast thunderstorms. And another that didn't call Mayday actually landed very low on fuel...

Quite a few years ago a widespread snowfall across much of the south of England caused a huge number of diversions, with one airport a bit to the north taking over 30 (I think) diversions. Early the next morning I flew out of there on a regional aeroplane and found a huge amount of fuel left onboard, perfectly adequate for the much increased fuel that I wanted. The pax load had been low enough to allow FULL fuel for departure on the inbound flight that previous night. I saw the captain of that inbound flight later and commented on fully understanding that fuel load, to get the answer "And it was so nice to arrive with so much fuel that we were able to go round and round and round the hold letting all the fuel Maydays in first"!! More fuel, less stress!

I remember one night, with snow worse than forecast everywhere (except our destination, but we had fuel to divert a long way away!) listening to an aeroplane going into another airport asking how long to expect in the hold, due to fuel concerns.
"I will find out", replied the ATC, to come back almost in the next breath, "They're now snow closed."
"Then we will be diverting to XXX", said the pilot, with 'urgency' in his voice.
"They are closed for diversions", said ATC.
"Then we need an immediate divert to YYY", said the pilot, with a very 'urgent' tone in his voice and noticeably higher 'pitch'/
"They are also not taking diversions", said ATC.
In the very few moments of silence that followed we could just imagine the tension on that flight deck as they thought of "what next?"!!
Then "ATC came back with "They've just said that they will take you."
There was a HUGE relief in the voice that replied "Thank you!"

Yes, don't put on loads of fuel all the time, but when there is any question about destination suitability, there should be no question at all about taking more fuel.

[NoelEvans]

Noel; "Just take loads of fuel" ?? Can we be a bit tighter ? That broad-band attitude in the cowboy outfit I endured for a short spell would have you in the Office so often you would be fed up of tea & any biscuits.

...

You appear lucky enough to work for a professional transport organization where your command decisions are respected. ...
In my last job we almost always took extra fuel as actually getting into the destination was important so extra holding fuel was always considered worth it. One day I heard the Ops Director say "If any captain says that we always go minimum fuel, then I need a word with him" It was an excellent job!!

[DogTailRed2]

Psychologically does it make it harder to land knowing the fuel state?
Does the low fuel state exacerbate the problem?

[biddedout]

This AIIB report about two F15 crews having a bad day at the office really shows how quickly things can get out of hand when under pressure and diverting with minimum fuel and when real world conditions overtake the theoretical word in Ops manuals. It was obviously a military incident but there are so many learning points in there for all of us. They flew the plan but must have been very close to running out of fuel before finally reaching Valley. Other Mil alternates were considered but were lost in the confusion of trying to get through busy airspace, climbing to economic cruise levels (with a very close Airprox on the way).
They must have overflown at least 6 very long ILS runways EMA, MAN, WTN, LPL, CEG, DSA on the way but presumably convention led them to not consider civil airfields. Likewise do civil pilots or controllers ever consider Military airfield as a potential option if things really get messy with multiple diversions, fuel emergencies and airports declaring themselves full?

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/embraer-emb-145eu-g-embe-and-two-mcdonnell-douglas-f15e-eagle-aircraft-27-january-2005

[krismiler]

There was the case several years ago of three aeroplanes declaring Mayday diverting into Valencia when Madrid had closed with un-forecast thunderstorms. And another that didn't call Mayday actually landed very low on fuel...

Guess which airline. A clue, it’s Irish and they even publish league tables of pilots taking extra fuel.

[bean]

Guess which airline. A clue, it’s Irish and they even publish league tables of pilots taking extra fuel.
But 2 out of 3 actually landed just above minimum and there were 4 low fuel maydays to Valenci that day

[midnight cruiser]

:= don't let facts get in the way of your self righteous indignation, will you kriasmiler - they don't publish fuel tables, and their flight plans are actually quite generous (eg they don't use 3% contingency in place of 5%) and the burn seems generous). And it's a very very big airline. When I worked there, I always seemed to gain fuel en route vs flight plan, and in my latter life elsewhere, as often as not, be losing fuel.

[NoelEvans]

Guess which airline. A clue, it’s Irish and they even publish league tables of pilots taking extra fuel.

But 2 out of 3 actually landed just above minimum and there were 4 low fuel maydays to Valenci that day

I was going to mention that...

Flight International reported on it and gave the fuel figures for the three RYR aeroplanes. They all departed and diverted with sufficient fuel, but ATC delays at Valencia caused the Maydays. As a result only one landed slightly below minimum. Apparently a South American long-haul that did not declare a Mayday landed with very low fuel.

You need to be well ahead of things in situations like that. Seeing ATC 'becoming overloaded' and declaring a Mayday early kept them safe.

[AN2 Driver]

There was the case several years ago of three aeroplanes declaring Mayday diverting into Valencia when Madrid had closed with un-forecast thunderstorms. And another that didn't call Mayday actually landed very low on fuel...


That one was not caused by the airline in question but by ATC. And it was funny that the "real" story of the A340 landing really short did not make news while the 737's which didn't were discussed widely.

[MissChief]

Jump-seated once from GLA-MAN with an idiot TCX management pilot, who took plog of 4.6 tons in an empty A330. Legal, but crass. Said idiot got caught out badly using plog fuel on a long one to CUN. He was forced to divert to a veery nearby airfield on super-low fuel. Still he didn't learn his lesson. And he is still a management pillot with a UK operator. Sad business, boyo.

[3Greens]

Jump-seated once from GLA-MAN with an idiot TCX management pilot, who took plog of 4.6 tons in an empty A330. Legal, but crass. Said idiot got caught out badly using plog fuel on a long one to CUN. He was forced to divert to a veery nearby airfield on super-low fuel. Still he didn't learn his lesson. And he is still a management pillot with a UK operator. Sad business, boyo.

what’s wrong with taking flight plan fuel on a GLA-MAN flight? Assuming nice weather etc

[krismiler]

Over in my part of the world, I taxied out for departure along with a couple of the competitors aircraft. There was a delay and shortly afterwards a runway change when we were close to the holding point. Instead of being at the front of the queue we were now at the back and facing a lengthy taxi. Both of the other aircraft had to return to the terminal to refuel. It makes me wonder how close fuel is being cut with some operators.

[Gordomac]

Kiris; You wonder "how close" ? I have the answer, as per the thread title ;" Too close for comfort" in countless occasions where many 'Operators' think they are being clever.

In my Cowboy outfit, walked away from one of many chop rides and playing the fuel policy, I quietly asked the FO who congratulated me on my performance if he was aware of the fuel state. He beamed with pride and responded" Yeah, we are , probably, the most fuel efficient operator in Europe.

Ex Mill Chopper who still thought that there was a war on also said " That's the way we do it, well done. Few more sectors (chop-rides) and you'll be ok. I was well on the path to better things anyway.

[NoelEvans]

That one was not caused by the airline in question but by ATC. And it was funny that the "real" story of the A340 landing really short did not make news while the 737's which didn't were discussed widely.
Because all the media wanted to 'point fingers' at the 737 airline. And they failed because there was no reason to 'point fingers'. The media don't have a clue who the A340 airline is and wouldn't understand the situation that it ended up in. Sad, but simple.

However, that does highlight yet another reason for considering extra fuel: "ATC"! A very valid point in some parts of the world, as this case has shown. But seeing that problem in advance and calling Mayday, as those 737s did, puts you in a better position for a safe landing.

krismiler's last Post highlights yet another aspect of the "ATC reason" for considering more fuel. I knew an airline that brought in a 'mandate' from Ops to carry PLOG minimum fuel. On a day soon after with no weather problems one of the Captains did just that on a Friday afternoon. The queue at the hold for departure was long enough (as he knew it would be on a Friday afternoon!) that he went way over his taxi fuel, so they had to return for fuel (not all that easy when in that queue, so a long delay to get to the front of the queue, then taxi up the runway to taxi back!!). Point safely (but expensively) proven and that 'mandate' disappeared!! People in offices do not always know what is best.

[70 Mustang]

Jump-seated once from GLA-MAN with an idiot TCX management pilot, who took plog of 4.6 tons in an empty A330. Legal, but crass. Said idiot got caught out badly using plog fuel on a long one to CUN. He was forced to divert to a veery nearby airfield on super-low fuel. Still he didn't learn his lesson. And he is still a management pillot with a UK operator. Sad business, boyo.


That exactly what the upper management want. Someone who will "tow the party line" no matter how useless it is.

[AN2 Driver]

Because all the media wanted to 'point fingers' at the 737 airline. And they failed because there was no reason to 'point fingers'. The media don't have a clue who the A340 airline is and wouldn't understand the situation that it ended up in. Sad, but simple.

.

It looked at the time that not only the media were eager to point fingers but the Spanish authorities as well.... it was a pretty dirty discussion at the time also because allegedly some spanish carriers were given priorities over the flights in question helping to cause the situation that emerged.

In the mean time quite a lot of people had to concede that those airlines may warrant criticism in many regards but their safety record is something that others envy them for. Why? Maybe because those airlines in question know DARN well that they can't afford any major incident or accident because they would be torn to pieces, even though other players may get away with much worse stuff and nothing happens.

[a350pilots]

When will the official report be published?

[DaveReidUK]

When will the official report be published?

Preliminary Report (just the very bare facts): HB-JZR_VB_e.pdf (admin.ch) (https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-JZR_VB_e.pdf)

The most recent Final Report I can see on the SUST website, published in mid-November, is for a March 2022 accident, so don't hold your breath.

[rigpiggy]

On an A320 carrying an extra 45 mins of fuel would add around 2% to take-off weight. What effect would this have on fuel burn?

On average 3.5-5% of the extra weight/hr

[krismiler]

Carry an extra ton of fuel will burn around 30-40 kgs of additional fuel per hour depending on the engines fitted and performance deterioration factor. The fuel burn on the A320 is about 40kgs per minute, less when light at higher altitude and more when heavy low down.

Roughly a minute’s flying per ton carried which isn’t much when compared with ATC delays but when multiplied by flights per day, over a year you’re talking about a fair number of hours.

[Peterd28]

Back on BA Classic 747 days, management decided to have an initiative against the unnecessary carriage of excess fuel. One particular Captain was routinely carrying an extra 5 tons and despite no end of blandishments over tea and biscuits, letters of re proof etc continued to freight fuel across the world. The final chapter of this saga was when the Flight Manager received an early morning phone call from this Captain. The conversation went like this
” Good morning John, I thought I’d let you know that I decided to take Flight plan fuel into LHR this morning”

Hello Bill, That really is excellent news .. well done!

” Yes and `I’m speaking to you from the hotel in Manchester”

Names have been changed to protect the innocent🧑🏼‍✈️
”

[binzer]

Back on BA Classic 747 days, management decided to have an initiative against the unnecessary carriage of excess fuel. One particular Captain was routinely carrying an extra 5 tons and despite no end of blandishments over tea and biscuits, letters of re proof etc continued to freight fuel across the world. The final chapter of this saga was when the Flight Manager received an early morning phone call from this Captain. The conversation went like this
” Good morning John, I thought I’d let you know that I decided to take Flight plan fuel into LHR this morning”

Hello Bill, That really is excellent news .. well done!

” Yes and `I’m speaking to you from the hotel in Manchester”

Names have been changed to protect the innocent🧑🏼‍✈️

”

any more info,, did they divert because of weather and didn’t/ couldn’t wait too long. Why didn’t they commit to stay ?
Or was it to prove a point which maybe it didn’t
As you said a while ago so maybe different rules back then.

[dixi188]

Used to fly into LHR some years ago. I seem to recall there was a note on the Jepp plate that up to 30 mins holding could be expected at busy times. Would the BA Flight Plan have included fuel for this.

[wiggy]

Used to fly into LHR some years ago. I seem to recall there was a note on the Jepp plate that up to 30 mins holding could be expected at busy times. Would the BA Flight Plan have included fuel for this.

Not as a specific item on the plan in my time there (very very late 80s up to about five years ago).

These days of course you'd expect routine holding to be accounted for in the statistical contingency figure.

[Herod]

But LHR was never just "normal" holding time. It was one of the places we tanked fuel from the more expensive departure airfields.

[krismiler]

The flight plan fuel assumes that you’ll arrive, do an approach followed by a go around and divert to the alternate where you do another approach and land with fixed reserve plus possibly contingency fuel. It doesn’t allow for re sequencing following a runway change or the extra holding involved when everyone diverts at the same time. It assumes you’re the only aircraft in the sky.

Contingency fuel gets reduced while the delays get increased, contingency will cover one item not the multiple ones which are becoming increasingly common. On a recent 4 hour flight I had 12 minutes contingency fuel, half of which I would have used with a cruise level 2000’ below the planned optimum which isn’t uncommon. This leaves enough for one holding pattern, then change to the less favourable arrival runway and I arrive with below minimum diversion fuel. But the weather forecast is good so it’s okay, until the MET man gets it wrong and the thunderstorms arrive early.

Flight plan fuel is simply the legal minimum departure amount rather than a real world figure.

[Mount Shasta]

They all departed and diverted with sufficient fuel, ...
... and declaring a Mayday early kept them safe.What is sufficient fuel for you? Minimum plus 2XX kgs and landing before the engines flame out?

"declaring a Mayday early kept them safe”. Are you serious? There are clear rules when you have to declare a fuel emergency.
At least in one point I can support you. You should try to be ahead, before situations like this develop. This begins with captain’s decision on the amount of fuel required. 2XX kgs extra fuel which equals about 7 minutes flying time for a potentially very busy airport like MAD with parallel approaches and crab weather is a joke.

[70 Mustang]

One Captain telling another captain how much fuel they should take, is about as productive as telling them how to do their hair.

[SECsmachine]

what’s wrong with taking flight plan fuel on a GLA-MAN flight? Assuming nice weather etc

Nothing in principle, but on the A330 that amount of fuel (4.6T) would have generated a L + R Wing TK LO LVL ECAM warning for almost the entire flight. :bored:

[FlightDetent]

To add a little context (and no meat of my own)

Minimum fuel quantity for takeoff..................................................... ......................5 200 kg (11 461 lb)
The ECAM alerts that are related to fuel low level in the wing tanks (FUEL WING TK LO LVL, etc.)
must not appear for takeoff.

Minimum weight...................................................... .........................................121 000 kg (266 760 lb)

FUEL L + R WING TK LO LVL:
>> Depending on the pitch attitude and fuel density, the alert may be triggered when fuel in one of the inner tank is between 1 100 kg (2 425 lb) and 2 520 kg (5 556 lb).

crunching some numbers:

ADDT fuel for planning with no alternate and independent runways (15 mins holding) ....... 1100 kg
FRSV IFR EASA rules (30 mins holding)............. 2200 kg
CONTG mnm 5 min ................. 400 kg

TAXI fuel ...................................400 kg

TOTAL = TAXI + TRIP + CNTG + ALTN + FRSV
4600 = 400 + TRIP + 400 + 1100 + 2200
TRIP = 500 kg

(exits stage through the trap door, you keep the coat)

[CVividasku]

Why everyone thinks about single sector? An airline with a few hundred aircraft regional fleet is doing literally thousands legs each day. If you wish to carry an extra fuel every time why dont you start your own AOC? Actually some gentlemen did. All of them failed badly.
At our outfit we carry 20-30 mins extra on average (even with clear weather), we're doing fine, thank you :)
what’s wrong with taking flight plan fuel on a GLA-MAN flight? Assuming nice weather etc
There is something called gauge error.
If you're unlucky, they will all be on the negative side, and you'll end up taking off with a few percent less fuel than legal minimum :)

Also if anything happens during taxi out, you have to go back to the gate hahaha

[Lookleft]

My simple fuel calculation when the weather and the weatherman was suspect was MLW+FBO-ZFW.

[Pearly White]

Unfortunately the amount of fuel burned in carrying extra fuel does mount up, particularly for larger operators. However it’s a safety issue and worth spending money on. I use my judgment to arrive with a sensible amount of fuel taking the conditions into account.

Going to India in the wet season, I’ve got fuel for the farthest alternate and about half an hours holding at my destination, if I can’t get in after a couple of goes I can choose the best option.

Flight plan fuel is simple the legal minimum to depart with.
If you think carrying extra fuel is expensive, have a look at the adjusted insurance premiums after flaming out on short final.

[FullWings]

I think that the discussion over how much “extra” fuel people take is a bit of a red herring. You can get short of fuel through changing circumstances no matter how much you took to start with, so it’s really down to what you do with what you’ve got left, which the crew in question appear to have executed to the best of their ability. Statistically you expect this kind of thing to happen, albeit very rarely, and these guys were presented with something that most pilots go through their entire careers without experiencing. Nothing was broken and nobody got hurt, which is the desired end result - Reserve Fuel is there to cater for these exact kind of situations, it’s not unusable, just that you never plan to use it.

It’s all very well saying you would take more fuel and divert early, but you are still vulnerable to unforeseen externalities. You can’t load fuel for every eventuality as you would be too heavy to take off, so there must be a balance. Personally, I find FP fuel adequate for most of the flights I do but have no hesitation in loading more when appropriate; what I don’t do is add an amount to every flight whatever, as that feels unprofessional - I am paid to be safe but also commercially aware. If I can identify a reason to uplift more and think that it will noticeably increase the chances of making it to destination, then I’m happy to do it as it actually saves time and money in the long run.

[NoelEvans]

What is sufficient fuel for you? Minimum plus 2XX kgs and landing before the engines flame out?

"declaring a Mayday early kept them safe”. Are you serious? There are clear rules when you have to declare a fuel emergency.
At least in one point I can support you. You should try to be ahead, before situations like this develop. This begins with captain’s decision on the amount of fuel required. 2XX kgs extra fuel which equals about 7 minutes flying time for a potentially very busy airport like MAD with parallel approaches and crab weather is a joke.What is sufficient fuel for me? Sufficient for the circumstances. There is no 'set number', it will vary as the circumstances vary.

I am very serious that declaring a Mayday kept them safe. As you said "You should try to be ahead" and that was exactly what they did: They saw the ATC 'system' getting overloaded and causing delays, they did not have the fuel for additional delays, so they said so and they landed safely. (That A340 didn't... and almost didn't.)

If you think carrying extra fuel is expensive, have a look at the adjusted insurance premiums after flaming out on short final.Correct.

... Personally, I find FP fuel adequate for most of the flights I do but have no hesitation in loading more when appropriate; what I don’t do is add an amount to every flight whatever, as that feels unprofessional - I am paid to be safe but also commercially aware. If I can identify a reason to uplift more and think that it will noticeably increase the chances of making it to destination, then I’m happy to do it as it actually saves time and money in the long run.Correct. You plan for the circumstances. And the circumstances can be very different on different days. As you say: "I am paid to be safe but also commercially aware." It's a balance of those two. And not paying proper attention to safety can become a commercial disaster.

[krismiler]

Declaring MAYDAY fuel gets you priority for landing but it doesn't do much about the thunderstorm that's closed the airport.

The problem comes in when everyone is declaring MAYDAY fuel at the same time because margins have been cut to the bone, and ATC are supposed to sort it out. The system can and must be able to deal with a genuine emergency. An aircraft low on fuel because of a technical problem obviously needs priority. It's unreasonable to rely on getting priority whenever you dip into the red area because you're operating right on the edge.

[BANANASBANANAS]

I had a 'conversation' with HR one day about carrying a little extra fuel. I just told them two things:

1. If you think its expensive to carry a little extra fuel, try carrying not quite enough. That can get real expensive, real quick.

2. When I sign the Tech Log I am signing underneath the written statement that 'I certify that there is enough fuel and oil on board the aircraft for the purpose of the intended flight.' So if I am not happy with the fuel on board I can't legally accept/sign for the aircraft.

The 'conversation' ended pretty quickly after that.

[Gordomac]

Bana ; You might not, on occasion be happy but beancounters will say that the fuel on board was legal. . They might even have the Company Lawyer present as you open your third packet of bourbons. They will try to ease with things, like, carrying 125 kgs contingency on the N Atlantic is legal because it is an ERA operation. You are paid to sign for legal acceptance of the aircraft. Not as a statement of happiness.

[70 Mustang]

Bana ; You might not, on occasion be happy but beancounters will say that the fuel on board was legal. . They might even have the Company Lawyer present as you open your third packet of bourbons. They will try to ease with things, like, carrying 125 kgs contingency on the N Atlantic is legal because it is an ERA operation. You are paid to sign for legal acceptance of the aircraft. Not as a statement of happiness.

those same beancounters and lawyers will have a different view of this matter whenever they and/or their families are on board.

[Mount Shasta]

@NoelEvans

Once again you cannot declare a fuel emergency “prematurely” just to become number one. If you’re not familiar with the rules ask your chief pilot. Obviously you avoid to give an answer to the STN flight. For today, 13.12.2023, there were 57 scheduled flights into MAD between 9am and 10am local time. Let’s assume the airport stopped arrivals for about 40 Minutes for any reason and all flights would have approached MAD with minimum fuel plus peanuts, like the STN flight. About 40 flights would have had to divert, many of them to VLC as a close and suitable airport. Do you believe VLC can handle many diversions beside the normal traffic and one by one declaring emergency?

I don’t understand it, when a professional claims that minimum fuel plus 6-7 min. is sufficient in weather conditions like this.

[NoelEvans]

...Once again you cannot declare a fuel emergency “prematurely” just to become number one. ...
...
If you are diverting and are, for example, given routing to a point to hold or you are being given very extensive routing possibly to fit in with other traffic and you do not have the fuel for that hold or that extended routing, you declare a fuel emergency, a Mayday. (In the situation that you are referring to, apparently one aeroplane did not declare an emergency and landed very, very low on fuel; the question should be why did they not declare an emergency?)

... Do you believe VLC can handle many diversions beside the normal traffic and one by one declaring emergency?
...
I don't need to 'believe' anything. If those diversions do not have the fuel for any further delays, then they need to declare emergencies. It is not up to the pilots in the air and running low on fuel to consider if ATC "can handle" that situation, it is up to the pilots in the air and running low on fuel to get their aeroplane, their passengers and (most importantly!) themselves safely on the ground. If the ATC concerned "cannot handle" a situation like that, that is an entirely different matter and a matter very, very much worthwhile investigating. I am almost wondering if you are giving a reason for adding extra fuel being "ATC might not be able to handle the situation"??

You say "If you’re not familiar with the rules ask your chief pilot." My last chief pilot in any situation like that would have asked me why I had departed with so little fuel to end up in a position like that...!

[Mount Shasta]

If the ATC concerned "cannot handle" a situation like that, that is an entirely different matter and a matter very, very much worthwhile investigating. I am almost wondering if you are giving a reason for adding extra fuel being "ATC might not be able to handle the situation"??It looks we will not find each other. At least you admit, without writing it down, that the fuel on board the STN flight was inadequate. They probably didn’t check the latest weather forecast for their destination before departing Stansted! The LAN flight didn’t declare a fuel emergency although the should have done. Unfortunately a big part of our job is to x-check others. More and more pilots are unfamiliar with rules and not willing to improve. It starts already on the ground. E.g. wingtip clearance is not assured until all traffic is in the correct position for which they had been cleared. We have had too many accidents because of this.

In my opinion you have to consider what to expect for each flight. Weather, your colleague in the flight deck, flight attendants, ATC, traffic etc. Yes, I take into account the overall situation such as number of flights that could be approaching and possibly diverting at the same time in weather situations like this and also ATC controllers. I am responsible to bring the aircraft with all souls on board safely on the ground. Maybe you stuck with your car from time to time in a traffic jam. Do you call your airline “I don't make it as the streets couldn’t handle the traffic”? At least you can shut down your engine.
By the way I had once an unpleasant experience on a flight to VLC. One controller cleared us to the VOR, the next controller cleared us for the ILS XX. I insisted that our clearance limit is the VOR and asked what he wants we should fly. The controller repeated his clearance without any explanation.

What do you think about another fuel emergency two days ago? GF250 staying in a holding over the destination for 1h and than diverting to the alternate declaring a fuel emergency? For me it looks like they couldn’t cross the border to Myanmar as ATC couldn’t handle a flight without a “valid flightplan”. In your opinion pilots shouldn’t consider problems like this.

... to get their aeroplane, their passengers and (most importantly!) themselves safely on the ground.That’s the difference between you and me. When I was in a delicate situation, my thoughts were first on the passengers and not on me.

[NoelEvans]

...

That’s the difference between you and me. When I was in a delicate situation, my thoughts were first on the passengers and not on me.
If I arrived somewhere safe and sound, so did my cargo.

[captaincoldfront]

After reading this thread I can only say how thankful I am that I fly for a common sense Company who is more than happy for me to take as much fuel as I deem neccessary to deliver my rich clients safely to their destination (or Alt, if required), no questions askes, Ever!
Ok, my jet is realtively small compared to the big aircraft you guys are flying, but I really dont think size matters it comes to spearing in!

[Del Prado]

Declaring a Fuel Mayday does not automatically make you number 1.

During mass diversion events there can be double digit numbers of fuel maydays.
It’s nothing to do with ATC not being able to handle you just common sense that you can’t all land straight away.
And expect increased spacing between fuel maydays to ensure landing clearance. 😮

Unfortunately these mass diversion events tend to be from sudden and unforeseeable events (runway surface break up, aircraft accident, drone activity, etc) so adding extra fuel on bad weather days doesn’t always obviate the risk.

[Bradley Hardacre]

Aeronautical Engineers and manufacturers go to great effort to "add lightness" (quote from colin chapman - lotus) so pilots can add fuel.

[tdracer]

Aeronautical Engineers and manufacturers go to great effort to "add lightness" (quote from colin chapman - lotus) so pilots can add fuel.

Actually, as an engineer - the prime driver for 'add lightness' is to save fuel.

[Mikehotel152]

In my experience, including training dozens of pilots doing their command courses, the problem is not necessarily commanders not having the willingness to upload sufficient fuel to cover known contingencies. Instead , it is the failure of many pilots who fly hundreds of sectors a year to properly make a plan to deal with a diversion once it becomes necessary.

These are high pressure situations where thinking time is at a premium as fuel is burned at a great rate. One needs to have a clear plan that complies with the commander's legal responsibility at dispatch. A plan that ensures that pressing TOGA at DA sets into motion a set of predetermined actions which ensure a safe landing 'somewhere'.

Vague ideas such as 'extra fuel' and 'wife and kids' just ensure that people burn valuable time thinking and not acting. From the looks of things, this Zurich diversion was enacted with little wasted time. But I wonder what plan was made on the ground in the crew room.

[1southernman]

Thru experience I considered the dsp fuel as a minimum...I added minutes in pounds depending on the situation and a/c type...10 minutes was my minimum add...Lost lots of sleep but not over my add "policy"...

[Mogwi]

An extra tonne of fuel for every line in the TAFF was a good start!

Mog

[Stone Cold II]

After reading this thread I can only say how thankful I am that I fly for a common sense Company who is more than happy for me to take as much fuel as I deem neccessary to deliver my rich clients safely to their destination (or Alt, if required), no questions askes, Ever!
Ok, my jet is realtively small compared to the big aircraft you guys are flying, but I really dont think size matters it comes to spearing in!
EZY have never questioned my fuel decisions. I have never known any colleagues get questioned about their fuel decisions in 20yrs in the land of orange.

[mahogany bob]

I always worked on the KISS principle when flying ( military 43 years)

Always have enough runway for t/o and landing
Don’t fly into high ground
Land with the gear DOWN
Carry enough fuel for the sortie plus ample reserves for bad weather etc

Ended up ( unlike others )with an equal number of takeoffs and landings.

PS Anyone know of any crashes,or other close ones, recently due to NO fuel left? (Must have happened regularly in WW2 and in the early days due nav errors etc )

Vulcan had a near one at Waddington in early 60s - engines all flamed out downwind (lots of fuel left but spread too thinly in the many fuel tanks!)

In the Falklands war Vulcan diverted to Rio almost didn’t make it - engines flamed out when taxiing in.

Flying EASY this w/e - some comments on this thread makes me feel slightly UNEASY ! At least they don’t fly the B737-9 ? Stone Cold comment noted.

[911slf]

Naive question. If you know you are low on fuel, is it practicable to squeeze every last drop out of some tanks in order to have a more significant quantity left in the tank you are using, or is it not that simple?

[krismiler]

A fuel tank will have a small quantity of fuel remaining in it when indicating empty, this is known as unusable fuel. It's best to avoid drawing every last drop as the bottom often has contaminants such as rust, water and sediment which you don't want clogging up the system. Carrying a sensible reserve and avoiding getting into a low fuel situation in the first place is the best option.

In flight it's possible to change what’s known as the cost index which flys a profile based on the airlines requirements. Basically you can fly minimum time, minimum fuel or somewhere in between. You can trade off a later arrival for more remaining fuel if reserves are getting a bit tight but you need to do this well ahead so the change has time to work.

[tdracer]

When the fuel gets low enough, there is also the potential to uncover the fuel inlets during maneuvering - not likely but possible. And yes, it has happened - I'm going to say mid 1980s (but stand to be corrected), 747 on a short positioning flight took off with minimal fuel on-board. Being very light, they climbed at a high angle and two engines flamed out due to fuel starvation when the fuel inlets were uncovered at the high AOA.

[Flipster130]

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-india-accident-triggered-spicejet-737-low-fuel-incident/123198.article

Worth a read

SpiceJet 737 in 2017 shut down with 150kg total fuel after 2 diversions due a host of reasons.

One of the most useless things in aviation is the fuel you left in the bowser!

[CVividasku]

Indeed. Regarding all the GOP that can induce a risk of overusing, when the risk becomes reality (go around due to badly managed flap 3 landing, return to parking because of not enough fuel taken on board, takeoff attempt with only one engine running and subsequent consequences, even the more unlikely but much more serious crash due to fuel starvation), it annihilates in one go several years of fuel efforts.

I think it more sensible to pay a little more at a time, than to risk having to pay a lot in one go.
It's the principle of insurance. Carrying more fuel, and applying GOPs with less motivation, you pay for an insurance. You may lose a bit overall* but that's the principle of insurance too. And you make for easier daily operations all the time.

*you may lose strictly on fuel, but what about customer impact when they notice the service is not provided correctly due to overoptimization ?

[FullWings]

In my experience, including training dozens of pilots doing their command courses, the problem is not necessarily commanders not having the willingness to upload sufficient fuel to cover known contingencies. Instead , it is the failure of many pilots who fly hundreds of sectors a year to properly make a plan to deal with a diversion once it becomes necessary.

These are high pressure situations where thinking time is at a premium as fuel is burned at a great rate. One needs to have a clear plan that complies with the commander's legal responsibility at dispatch. A plan that ensures that pressing TOGA at DA sets into motion a set of predetermined actions which ensure a safe landing 'somewhere'.

Vague ideas such as 'extra fuel' and 'wife and kids' just ensure that people burn valuable time thinking and not acting. From the looks of things, this Zurich diversion was enacted with little wasted time. But I wonder what plan was made on the ground in the crew room.
I think that is the nub of it. It’s not how much you put on to begin with, it’s what you do when it’s running out, or you think it might run out later. Extra fuel often just delays the point at which serious decisions are going to have to be made, and in cases with long duty days, may make the destination unachievable after diversion.

I’m not against gassing up when you need it, but in my book it has to be for identifiable reasons, not just some illusory safety blanket. The incidents we are discussing are the 6-7 sigma, one-in-millions level occurrences where things went wrong (and kept going wrong) but still came to a successful conclusion. If you’re happy with intersection takeoffs and thrust derates, flight plan fuel on the average day shouldn’t cause too many issues?

[421dog]

Had a bad afternoon one day 20 years or so ago where I did a precautionary shut down and cross-fed to the running engine.
Got everything sorted and, upon taking off the next morning, even though I had ostensibly enough fuel in the (unbalanced) mains per the book, the low side engine quit just at Vr on the roll, and, the rejection boiled the brakes making for an interesting turnoff at the end of the runway involving the (fortunately available differential thrust)
Happily I didn’t bend anything.

[Peristatos]

I don't see the problem, extra fuel not used for a go around means less fuel to tank the next flight?

[Plastic787]

Depends where it was purchased and also the cost to tanker it when it’s not burnt itself. The airline accountants will disagree with you even if I don’t necessarily myself.

[champair79]

It’s really very simple. Take minimum flight plan fuel when the weather is good and the stats show you’re likely to be fine (and your alternate is decent).

When it’s bad weather, load it on (I always plan for two gos, a decent alternate which may be further away to give a few options) plus some holding fuel either to hold to make the approach or to give you some thinking time.

Loading extra ‘just because’ isn’t being professional. It really adds up over thousands of sectors. On the flip side, take it when you really need to. An avoidable diversion quickly recoups the costs on the few days where it’s really gone to sh*t. You’re being paid to look at your flight and the big picture.

[albatross]

One thing to keep in mind is that when you have to divert chances are a lot of others will have to too. If a large % of those folks have the same alternate as you (and they probably will) and that Airport is already busy and the prevailing meteorological phenomena there is IMC there will probably be a bit of a traffic jam there and a lot of diverting folks will also be at low fuel state.
All this can lead to an “interesting” afternoon if things go pear shaped weather or ATC wise at #1.
As the herd all stampedes over the horizon towards the #1 alternate it may be wise to take a serious look at proceeding direct to your #2 alternate and avoid the scrum at #1.
Just a thought.

[krismiler]

I took 1.3 tons extra on the baby bus the other day and landed with 2.4 in the tanks after 35 minutes of unexpected holding. The delay would have been longer if three aircraft ahead of me hadn’t diverted due to low fuel.

Instead of a three hour minimum delay, associated costs and schedule disruption we were on stand 45 minutes late just as the next crew were entering the gate lounge.

[1066]

In the late 90's BA short haul at LGW, (EOG), had an anonymised extra fuel carried list. I can only recall it being published once. Captains could identify themselves via a PIN.
I was proud to be 56 out of 112 Captains. Bang in the middle. Struck me as exactly the right place to be! Obviously I only took extra when I thought it was needed.
1066

[krismiler]

An extra fuel used list would be more useful, then you could see if you were carrying excess unnecessarily. I estimate that half of the time I take extra, I use it.

[CaptainProp]

I don't see the problem, extra fuel not used for a go around means less fuel to tank the next flight?

Say you have 2000 flights / day carrying 800kg extra for that go around that’s not actually flown. 2 hours average flight time x 3-4% of extra weight carried in extra fuel burn per hour. That’s $85k. Per day. Say “only” 25% of the flights carry this extra fuel. $7.5m per year. There’s the “problem”.

CP

[krismiler]

Getting extra fuel right all the time is like expecting to play the stock market and always buy at the troughs and sell at the peaks, it doesn’t happen in real life.

Amazingly, the time and fuel used in avoiding weather is never questioned, I’ve gone over 100 miles off track before and never had it brought up by management. Not injuring and traumatising the pax and not over stressing the airframe is something they don’t seem to mind.

[CaptainProp]

The point is, as already mentioned by several ppl here, take fuel when weather / situation call for it, not to try to avoid any and all diversions on a standard day. That’s not only financially sound but also safe.

[NoelEvans]

... take fuel when weather / situation call for it, not to try to avoid any and all diversions on a standard day. ...What is a "standard day"?


I have experienced three occasions when the airport has been closed on a CAVOK day with light winds. On two occasions the aeroplane behind us had an incident closing the airfield and causing everyone else to divert. (Both were A320s, one went off the side of the runway to avoid an overrun, the other landed with the brakes on...! That should identify the airport!) and myself had to hold and very nearly divert when a light aircraft had gone off the runway, closing the airport. So don't think that diverts are 'only' weather related! And, as albatross has correctly said, you won't be the only one diverting so it might be worth considering where you divert to if there are other options. Also, I once had a weather divert (with plenty of fuel!) where our company asked us not to divert to our first diversion as the local team's 'away' football match meant that there were no busses for the pax.


Diverts can become very complex and what is a "standard day"!!

[goeasy]

so.... going by that everyone would depart with full tanks????

[NoelEvans]

Not at all!!

Just be ready to think ahead.

There is not necessarily any "standard day"!

[krismiler]

so.... going by that everyone would depart with full tanks????

If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.

[A321drvr]

If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.

Ideally dispatch should calculate fuel with the longest trackmile option between dep and dest. Same should go for alternate planning. Secondly crew should be paid fuel saving bonus (taking minimum/less extra fuel bonus, perhaps?) without all the ranking bs some base captains can hold against certain pilots when time comes. That crap should be plain illegal, IMHO. Again, ideally, captains should be provided with all the data to make an educated fuel uplift decision based on their experience, route and local knowledge. Another thing comes to mind: policy between least fuel and possible time spent without seatbelt signs on should be clearly stated and communicated, eg.: what's more important saving some kilos enroute or cc being able to sell merch to pax - this only concerns LCC-s mostly, obviously. This latter can make or break a good day out for cc-s simply loosing out on their percentage bonuses from sales due to potentially choppy least fuel CRZ FL.

[CaptainProp]

What is a "standard day"?


I have experienced three occasions when the airport has been closed on a CAVOK day with light winds. On two occasions the aeroplane behind us had an incident closing the airfield and causing everyone else to divert. (Both were A320s, one went off the side of the runway to avoid an overrun, the other landed with the brakes on...! That should identify the airport!) and myself had to hold and very nearly divert when a light aircraft had gone off the runway, closing the airport. So don't think that diverts are 'only' weather related! And, as albatross has correctly said, you won't be the only one diverting so it might be worth considering where you divert to if there are other options. Also, I once had a weather divert (with plenty of fuel!) where our company asked us not to divert to our first diversion as the local team's 'away' football match meant that there were no busses for the pax.


Diverts can become very complex and what is a "standard day"!!

But you are talking about more or less freak events. Planning fuel uplift for these type of events on a daily basis is simply unprofessional and has nothing to do with safety. 9/11 happened, do we bring more, full, fuel now “just in case”?

So of course there are “standard days”, of course it’s not all weather related but we plan with the information we have, use our experience with airport X Y and Z to make decisions that are reasonable, professional, safe and financially sound. That’s our job.
You’re talking about events you would perhaps bring up with someone just reaching command, or perhaps new in to commercial aviation, to make them aware that things can happen. Keep your mind open, try to plan ahead when things are developing into something that’s no longer a “standard day”. If you get info that airport is closed, or runway blocked, take an early decision to divert, be proactive.

CP

[deeceethree]

Secondly crew should be paid fuel saving bonus (taking minimum/less extra fuel bonus, perhaps?) without all the ranking bs some base captains can hold against certain pilots when time comes.
Paying crew extra for taking less fuel is a sure fire way to encourage poor fuel planning decisions, and the results of such a policy would be an increase in low fuel incidents, and accidents.

[procede]

If everyone departed with maximum fuel consistent with landing weight limits there would be very few diversions or Mayday fuels. However the excess fuel used would be horrendous and seriously affect profitability.

If everyone departed with the minimum fuel legally required there would be many more diversions and Mayday fuels. The resulting disruptions would also seriously affect profitability, not to mention the safety issues.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle, I’m convinced we’re too near the second option at the moment.

Do not forget that taking off with max fuel also means a heavier, faster landing with more fuel which is a risk in itself.

Exceptional circumstances is exactly why there is a final reserve, but it needs to be investigated when it is used.

[A321drvr]

Paying crew extra for taking less fuel is a sure fire way to encourage poor fuel planning decisions, and the results of such a policy would be an increase in low fuel incidents, and accidents.
Presumably we're all professionals, so no, I disagree. Matter of fact I believe that financial incentive in one's fuel planning is a safer way to go than being bullied or pointed out on charts/statistics who is constantly landing with the most fuel - happens at a lot of places, unfortunately.